Rached Willis DB 14.1

  1. Ruth Gilmore says that capitalism will stop being racial capitalism, when all the white people disappear from the story. What’s the connection between “whiteness” and racism, do you think?

In the video she explains capital creates inequality and racism enshrined it. Understanding, capitalism was created based on European slavery and has just evolved and adapted to new society. So if we delete “whiteness” there would be no space for capitalism and racism would not have that to feed on. I do agree with her ideas because on a prior lesson I had explained capitalism is modern day slavery. The ones who always financial benefit are usually white males while everyone else has a glass ceiling about them. In order to racism someone needs to benefit from it which are white people.

2.Gilmore makes the point that criminals are actually being created by the criminal justice and prison system (she says “the category of ‘criminal person’ can be perpetuated”). According to Gilmore, how does that happen, how does the prison system create new “criminals“? Do you agree with her view?

Gilmore expressed the needs for surplus and the only way this need can be fulfilled is by having a steady stream of criminals. She explains in order to maintain this stream, grow it and deepen it is by providing longer sentencing, and expanding the list of behaviors that is viewed as criminal. This view is very interesting and i never took the time to think about it but I do agree with it. With the idea of mass incarceration this was how surplus was made for the prison system. Since this was observed and people complained about it the next way to gain is by creating laws and policies that help incarcerated people mainly blacks and browns and the provide them with the max amount of sentencing they can have.

3. Describe how your understand what Prof. Gilmore – in the last part of her video – calls “liberation struggle”?

My understanding of Liberation struggle is the fight for freedom from the white people and we basically need to lean on one another in order to win this fight.

Db 13 Rached Willis

  1. According to MLK, how can we tell the difference between just and unjust laws? Understanding this questions is the most important part of this module, and I will ask it again during our second exam.

According to MLK, the way we can tell the difference between just and unjust laws is based on the law. He explains in his letter if the law uplifts human personality and basically make you feel good about yourself. With unjust laws is degrades you and causes a person to feel either superior or inferior

  1. In your view, is this an important distinction (between just and unjust laws), do you think it makes a difference in the way someone (as an individual, or our society as a whole) lives their lives? Can it affect our politics?

I do believe this is a good way to distinguish just and unjust laws. When it comes to the term just it means to me something fair and when you are treated fairly it builds you up and make you feel good about yourself. Something unjust I see it as unfair which means someone is treating you or being treated better than you which degrades you. i do believe it would make a difference in the way a person lives their life because as a society we would want to create laws that uplifts people and create fairness. However, it can affect our politics. When it comes to politics we have to understand politics are usually based around ideologies, in which everyone does not hold the same ideas. So how can we create just laws for everyone? Something i might consider to be just the next person might consider it to be unjust.

  1. Based on our discussion of Question 1, give an example each, of an unjust and just law, in the US today. Explain what makes it unjust or just (using MLK’s definition of those two types of laws).

Freedom of religion is a just law. Everyone should be able to practice whatever religion makes them feel happy to practice. Not everyone believes in the same things. One law i believe is unjust is abolishment of abortions. I feel that no one should be able to dictate what a person does with their body. A women might have tons of reasons why she would like to terminate a pregnancy.

Rached Willis 12.1

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).

In the reading, Betty Dukes was in the process of filing a Class act lawsuit against Wal-mart for pay gaps due to gender discrimination. Betty Dukes filed the case and was given a ruling that the women did not qualify for back pay since all of their instances were not in common. Like same positions, or same stores, etc.

Rached Willis 11.1

  1. In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government (such as Congress and the President; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Give an example to illustrate your argument.

Well the court system focus on the rights of an individual person. Whereas the elected branches of government focus on people as a whole and not individually. Also elected branches does not base their decisions on public biases. For example Brown V board of education. This hearing occurred during the time of segregation. The federal government made a decision to end segregation in schools even though this is not something the public wanted.

2.Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike Presidents, Mayors and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts system, and especially the Supreme Court, anti-democratic PLACES IN OUR GOVERNMENT. Do you agree that the Supreme Court, for example, is an anti-democratic part of our government? What could be the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts? (HINT: think about our discussion of “Federalist #10”, and which social class plays a leading role in our government system.)

I do believe this part of our government is anti-democratic with this being the only place people does not have the opportunity to vote and choose who can be judge. I believe judges are appointed oppose to being voted in because Judges keeps their positions until retirement or death. I feel that it helps take the pressure of the public for making a decision of placing a person that they might end up regretting into a power position. With other positions there are terms so if the public feel they made a mistake at least there is a reassurance the person will not stay in power.

Rached Willis 7.1

  1. Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems.

As described in reading 3.1 when it comes to citizen in government, among the federal, the government is broken up into two sectors in which citizens are the ones who chooses who they want to represent the sectors. This done is through voting. With the unitary system the subnational government is dependent on the national government. With this system the citizens relies on the government and allows them to make the decisions. With the confederation citizens are the ones that are in control due to the authority being concentrated to the states.

  1. Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power.

My understanding of division of power is no one entity holds all the power. The power is divided amongst other branches which all needs to come together to create on power. For example, we have the judicial, legislative and executive branches that holds power in different parts of the government.

  1. How does the federal government shape the actions of state and local governments? Write your answer based on doing a bit of research on how the federal government has influenced the actions of NY state and local governments, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The federal government can either allow the state and local govs to make decisions for themselves but when the decisions made are not helping the federal government can come in and impose a rule that the state and local gov has to follow. For example during covid states had the opportunity to regulate covid-19 policies but when Covid began to worsen the federal government imposed a lock down nationwide.

Rached Willis Db 5.3

  1. Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?

One statistic on wealth inequality that made an impression on me is the fact that the richest 1 percent holds more than 40-50 percent of the nation’s capital. This saddens me and also upsets me. I feel this just goes to show unfair America is and the priorities of our nation. America struggles with poverty, homelessness,etc. many people cannot even afford to put food on the table or clothing on their back but the 20% of the nation’s richest people makes 13 times the amount of 20 poor people. How can this be possible. Our nation needs to find a way of balancing the wealth inequality. How come everyone can’t live comfortable. I do believe fixing that gap will help lower crime rates, poverty, and homelessness.

  1. What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?

Well, some implications of living in a society with a huge wealth gap is what we see here everytime we walk out our front doors. Poverty, homelessness, crime, etc. I do feel that the gap help create these problems. Many people are out here working for the minimum wage meanwhile the cost of living is 50 – 60 times that. When i recently move if I did not exceed 40 times the rent i would not been able to move. This is not ok. People are going hungry and are running out of options so they are turning to the next best thing which is robbing/ committing crimes to help them meet their everyday needs.

Rached Willis DB 9.2

  • P. Williams writes in her essay, that the war on terror is a new type of a war. What’s new about it, how is it different from traditional wars?

According to P. Williams, the war on terror is different from traditional wars because this war is the war “of the mind.” She further explains with this type of war anyone who does something that is out of our ordinary and makes us feel fearful becomes the targeted enemy. This war is based off of one’s emotion opposed to against an actual person like in traditional wars.

  • In what ways does the “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights? Which amendment(s) does it seem to violate and why?

Well when it comes to the roving wiretap it violates our fourth amendment right. The right against unreasonable search and seizures. This seems to violate our 4th amendment because with wiretaps the government is listening in on phone conversations, text messages, emails, etc. While doing this the other person is warranted to unreasonable search. For example, the government is wiretapping Tommy who is a known terrorist, but Tommy is talking to Jack who is not a known terrorist and not on the warrant for the wiretap. Jack tells Tommy a whole host of personal information while the tapping is occuring. Jack’s 4th amendment has now been violated.

  • What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

Sneak Peek warrants is useful because it can help with thing such as drug bust but i do believe it still violates a person’s 4th amendment rights.

Rached Willis 9.1

  1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”.

In the reading it states that “Congress is prohibited from creating or promoting a state-sponsored religion” So to me this means that the government is not allow to make or advertise a religion for people to follow. The Lemon test came about due to the court hearing of Lemon Vs Kurtzman. The test consist of three criterias that has be satisfied before the law or the action is deemed constitutional. Within the criteria there must be a clear distinction between religion and government.

2. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.

According to the reading, the burning of the flag is not deemed unconstitutional and is protected by the first Amendment because it is seen as a form of symbolic speech. This decision came about during the Texas v Johnson case where Gregory Johnson decided to burn the flag during a protest near the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. He was arrested and charged but then the Texas v Johnson hearing came about.

3. What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?

When someone says “im taking the fifth” or ” I plead the fifth” this means that they refuse to answer any question or make any statement that can incriminate them in court.

Rached Willis 5.2

As we learned thus far, the capitalist class consists of people who own wealth, as well as the means of production in American society. An important question in understanding how this class works is to ask: how does a capitalist remain wealthy? The answer to this question depends largely on understanding the diagram M-C-M’. So, let’s practice by explaining what happens in this diagram in our own words (but basing our ideas on Reading 5.1). Respond to the following question: Explain M-C-M’ to show how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth. (hint: your answer should weave a summary that includes what you reviewed in the self-assessment exercise question 1-7)

M-C-M is a formula that Marx used make up the capitalist system. M-C-M stands for money-commodity-money. With this form the way the capitalist would maintain and increase their wealth is because they would have an item in its raw state such as wood. They would not sell the wood even though the wood have value of its own but rather hire people that would turn the wood into something such as furniture or paper, etc and obtain surplus value plus the profit of selling the item. So the idea is you start off with money that you use to buy a commodity which is the raw material, then you sell it back for more money.

Rached Willis DB 6.2

  1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?

Faction reminds me of the lesson we had on what is an ideology. The faction is similar to the conversation of liberals and conservatives. In the reading it talks about the views of the two groups of people. This is displayed in the reading when it states “who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

  1. According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), what is the source of wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor)? This is a key question, because it shows how the authors of the Constitution thought about the difference between different classes of Americans! HINT: focus on the passage that begins: “The diversity in the faculties (WHAT DOES FACULTIES mean or refer to?) of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not les….”

Well in the reading J. Madison states “Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.” Which indicates people who have money and land are ones who should run legislation. He also stated, “The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves,” which to me means a person who is wise and holds knowledge is a person who would makes the best decisions.

So overall the source of wealth is to have money, property and smartness.

  1. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?

I somewhat agree with this explanation of wealth. A person who has property and money but does not have knowledge as to how to maintain it can lose it all and fall into poverty. A person who has all three possesses the knowledge to maintain wealth. Now where the somewhat agreeance comes in is that there are many smart people who does not own property or money. I guess than do we really have the knowledge needed in order to gain wealth.

  1. What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain.

Based on the reading the core mission of the government is to protect faculties. Yes this is similar to our society today. The rich gets rich and the poor stays or become poorer. There are many rules and regulations in place that help protect the rich and their property. They receive many tax breaks and are not taxed as much as the poor people. Also when it comes to placing people in government they always talk about helping poor communities but you never see a change. Instead you see gentrification and the rise in prices of the cost of living mean while people are working for a minimum rate that cannot pay the bills. The corporations makes the profit.

  1. Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would d the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…

The author of the Federalist 10 appears to have an interest in the government being run by people that possess knowledge and has wealth and property. He believes that if the government remains republic then there is a way to keep a control on the factions. With democracy it provides all with a voice and he believes people cannot govern themselves .